Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor is essential after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), while many studies have focused on determining the optimal degree of platelet inhibition and optimal DAPT duration to minimize complications after PCI. Current guidelines developed by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology summarize previous studies and provide recommendations. However, these guidelines are mainly based on Western patients, and their characteristics might differ from those of East Asian patients. Previous data suggested that East Asian patients have unique features with regard to the response to antiplatelet agents. On comparing Western and East Asian patients, it was found that East Asian patients have a lower rate of ischemic events and higher rate of bleeding events after PCI, despite a higher on-treatment platelet reactivity, which is referred to as the “East Asian paradox.” As the main purpose of DAPT is to minimize ischemic and bleeding complications after PCI, these differences should be clarified before adopting the guidelines for East Asian patients. Therefore, in this article, we will review various issues regarding DAPT in East Asian patients, with a focus on the unique characteristics of East Asian patients, previous studies regarding antiplatelet agents in East Asian patients, and a guideline from an East Asian perspective.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor is essential after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), while many studies have focused on determining the optimal degree of platelet inhibition and optimal DAPT duration to minimize complications after PCI. Current guidelines developed by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology summarize previous studies and provide recommendations. However, these guidelines are mainly based on Western patients, and their characteristics might differ from those of East Asian patients. Previous data suggested that East Asian patients have unique features with regard to the response to antiplatelet agents. On comparing Western and East Asian patients, it was found that East Asian patients have a lower rate of ischemic events and higher rate of bleeding events after PCI, despite a higher on-treatment platelet reactivity, which is referred to as the “East Asian paradox.” As the main purpose of DAPT is to minimize ischemic and bleeding complications after PCI, these differences should be clarified before adopting the guidelines for East Asian patients. Therefore, in this article, we will review various issues regarding DAPT in East Asian patients, with a focus on the unique characteristics of East Asian patients, previous studies regarding antiplatelet agents in East Asian patients, and a guideline from an East Asian perspective.
Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Aspirin ; Blood Platelets ; Cardiology ; Heart ; Hemorrhage ; Humans ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors

The ergonovine provocation test is often used in diagnosing variant angina. Most patients with an ergonovine-induced coronary artery spasm respond promptly to intracoronary nitroglycerin administration within 3 to 5 minutes. However, in a few patients ergonovine results in serious cardiovascular complications due to intractable coronary artery spasm. We report a case of a severe and medically intractable coronary spasm induced by ergonovine, followed by cardiac arrest. Aided by percutaneous cardiopulmonary support (PCPS) and mechanical ventilation, the patient could survive after four days of hospitalization despite a recurrent vasospasm. Recovery was largely attributed to full supportive care and the use of PCPS.
Coronary Vessels ; Ergonovine ; Heart Arrest ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Nitroglycerin ; Respiration, Artificial ; Spasm

Objective: Recent studies have raised concern about the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors. We performed a systematic review through meta-analysis to compare cardiovascular outcomes of sulfonylurea (SU) versus DPP4 inhibitors when used in combination with metformin. Methods: After searching for trials using combination therapy of metformin with DPP4 inhibitor or SU in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, one prospective observation study and 15 randomized controlled studies were selected. Results: Regarding the primary analysis endpoint, there were no significant differences in the risk of all-cause mortality between SU and DPP4 inhibitors as an add-on therapy to metformin (random-effect relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98–1.33;p=0.811; I2 =0%). Cardiovascular death was also similar between the two drug classes in the five studies which reported outcomes (random-effect RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.83–1.27; p=0.517; I2 =0%). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac events (MACE), coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and heart failure. However, there were less hypoglycemic events and weight gain in the DPP4 inhibitor group as compared with the SU group (random-effect RR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.53–9.39; p<0.001; I2 =98.2 and weighted mean difference, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.07–2.29; p<0.001; I2 =94.7, respectively). Conclusion As add-on therapy to metformin, there were no significant differences in allcause mortality and cardiovascular mortality between DPP4 inhibitors and SUs.

Objective: Recent studies have raised concern about the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors. We performed a systematic review through meta-analysis to compare cardiovascular outcomes of sulfonylurea (SU) versus DPP4 inhibitors when used in combination with metformin. Methods: After searching for trials using combination therapy of metformin with DPP4 inhibitor or SU in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, one prospective observation study and 15 randomized controlled studies were selected. Results: Regarding the primary analysis endpoint, there were no significant differences in the risk of all-cause mortality between SU and DPP4 inhibitors as an add-on therapy to metformin (random-effect relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98–1.33;p=0.811; I2 =0%). Cardiovascular death was also similar between the two drug classes in the five studies which reported outcomes (random-effect RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.83–1.27; p=0.517; I2 =0%). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac events (MACE), coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and heart failure. However, there were less hypoglycemic events and weight gain in the DPP4 inhibitor group as compared with the SU group (random-effect RR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.53–9.39; p<0.001; I2 =98.2 and weighted mean difference, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.07–2.29; p<0.001; I2 =94.7, respectively). Conclusion As add-on therapy to metformin, there were no significant differences in allcause mortality and cardiovascular mortality between DPP4 inhibitors and SUs.